Literature Collection

OBJECTIVES: To assess what practice-, provider-, and patient population-level predictors predict adoption of an ADHD ehealth technology in community pediatric settings, pediatric providers nationwide were recruited and offered free use of an evidence-based mental-health-focused ehealth quality improvement intervention (mehealth for ADHD). Practice-, provider-, and patient population-level factors predicting provider's adoption of the intervention were studied. We hypothesized that providers who were younger, nearing re-credentialing, having more patients with ADHD, working at larger practices, serving socioeconomically deprived patient populations, and using an electronic health record (EHR) with mehealth integration would predict higher rates of adoption. METHODS: A variety of recruitment strategies were attempted. Providers completed a baseline survey, were given free access to mehealth, and then had their software adoption recorded (i.e., account activation, rate of patients registered, completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles). Multiple regressions examined what practice-, provider-, and patient population-level variables predicted provider's adoption of the software. RESULTS: A total of 1,612 providers at 813 practices across 48 states and the District of Columbia consented to the study. The most common ways that providers heard about the research study was through word-of-mouth (37%), advertising (23%), and through professional affiliation (11%). 1,210 (75.1%) providers activated their mehealth provider account and 446 (36.8%) registered at least 1 patient. Over 4.5 years, 21,804 patients were registered on the platform. Being able to access mehealth within their EHR predicted provider account activation, provider rate of patients registered, and the practice's completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. In addition, having a lower proportion of Medicaid patients predicted higher rates of patients being registered on the software. CONCLUSIONS: Getting providers to consider, try, and adopt new evidence-based assistive technologies is challenging. Making ehealth software easier for providers' to access through EHR integration appears critical to adoption.

BACKGROUND: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to be a safe, cost-effective intervention that successfully lowers risk of opioid overdose. However, access to and use of MOUD has been limited. Our objective was to explore attitudes, opinions, and beliefs regarding MOUD among healthcare and social service providers in a community highly impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. METHODS: As part of a larger ethnographic study examining neighborhoods in Allegheny County, PA, with the highest opioid overdose death rates, semi-structured qualitative in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with forty-five providers treating persons with opioid use disorders in these communities. An open coding approach was used to code interview transcripts followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified related to MOUD from the perspectives of our provider participants. Within a variety of health and substance use service roles and settings, provider reflections revealed: (1) different opinions about MOUD as a transition to abstinence or as a long-term treatment; (2) perceived lack of uniformity and dissemination of accurate information of MOUD care, permitting differences in care, and (3) observed barriers to entry and navigation of MOUD, including referrals as a "word-of-mouth insider system" and challenges of getting patients MOUD services when they need it. CONCLUSIONS: Even in communities hard hit by the opioid overdose epidemic, healthcare providers' disagreement about the standard of care for MOUD can be a relevant obstacle. These insights can inform efforts to improve MOUD treatment and access for people with opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The provider-patient relationship is integral to medical practice and health outcomes, particularly among vulnerable patient populations. This study compared the provider-patient relationship among pregnant patients with opioid-use disorder (OUD), who did or did not have a history of moderate to severe trauma. METHODS: This was an exploratory data analysis of 119 patients enrolled in the Support Models for Addiction Related Treatment trial. Probable posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was determined by a score ≥ 31 on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The provider-patient relationship was assessed at 26 ± 4 weeks of pregnancy using the Kim Alliance Scale (KAS). Multivariable regression was used to examine the association of KAS with probable PTSD among pregnant people with OUD. RESULTS: The mean KAS score for pregnant participants without probable PTSD (N = 88) was 61.4 (SD ± 2.8) and for pregnant participants with probable PTSD (N = 31) was 59.6 (SD ± 3.7). Results demonstrated significant differences in KAS scores between those with and without probable PTSD after adjusting for demographic variables. Adjusted mean total KAS scores and scores on Empowerment and Communication subscales were significantly lower among those with probable PTSD compared to those without (p = .04 and 0.02, respectively) but did not differ significantly on Collaboration and Integration subscales. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Analyses show an association between probable PTSD and provider-patient relationship among pregnant patients with OUD, with those with probable PTSD having a worse alliance with obstetric providers. This novel finding helps characterize the provider-patient relationship among a uniquely vulnerable population and can inform efforts to integrate trauma-informed practices into prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Present analysis of the federal and state regulations that guide The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) operations and core clinical features for direction on behavioral health (BH). DESIGN: Review and synthesize the federal (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]) and all publicly available state manuals according to the BH-Serious Illness Care (SIC) model domains. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 155 PACE organizations operating in 32 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: A multipronged search was conducted to identify official state and federal manuals guiding the implementation and functions of PACE organizations. The CMS PACE website was used to identify the federal PACE manual. State-level manuals for 32 states with PACE programs were identified through several sources, including official PACE websites, contacts through official websites, the National PACE Association (NPA), and public and academic search engines. The manuals were searched according to the BH-SIC model domains that pertain to integrating BH care with complex care individuals. RESULTS: According to the CMS Manual, the interdisciplinary team is responsible for holistic care of PACE enrollees, but a BH specialist is not a required member. The CMS Manual includes information on BH clinical functions, BH workforce, and structures for outcome measurement, quality, and accountability. Eight of 32 PACE-participating states offer publicly available state PACE manuals; of which 3 offer information on BH clinical functions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Regarding BH, federal and state manual regulations establish limited guidance for comprehensive care service delivery at PACE organizations. The absence of clear directives weakens BH care delivery due to a limiting the ability to develop quality measures and accountability structures. This hinders incentivization and accountability to truly all-inclusive care. Clearer guidelines and regulatory parameters regarding BH care at federal and state levels may enable more PACE organizations to meet rising BH demands of aging communities.

Despite pronounced disparities in mortality and physical health outcomes, no well accepted models exist for integrating primary care with behavioral health for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). This article describes a case study of an enhanced approach to primary care that builds on the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model and adds three additional components: (1) longer and more frequent visits to establish trust and increase adherence, (2) a primary care team that has both the skills to provide effective primary care and the heart to take care of patients with SMI and (3) planned and proactive communication between the behavioral health team and the primary care team.